Cookie Notice

WE LOVE THE NATIONS OF EUROPE

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Thursday, 30 June 2016

What are MPs for?

Sir Patrick Cormack, later Lord Cormack, was a long-serving constituency MP who never sought government office. He was content that Staffordshire South voters from across the political parties consistently elected him, although he took the Tory whip. Best of all though, he declared rather crossly in 2008 that his loyalties were to country, constituency and party. In that order.

A large part of the trouble that the PLP are in at present is because their priorities lie in the opposite order. On the referendum they didn't represent the majority of their old-Labour constituents - who voted Leave - and allied themselves instead with the globalism that is destroying traditional Labour voting communities. Over the past week, at a time when, for our country, Britons of all political colours must close ranks and present a united face to the world, they're presenting the most unedifying and undignified of spectacles in their foolish and jejune squabbling.

What's even more risible is that the little rainbow coalition behind Corbyn are also Remainians, though of the open-borders and dreads type, whilst Corbyn himself tends to ally with old Labour 'Leave'. Worst of all, the entire PLP appears to believe they're in Parliament to represent the Labour Party, and not their constituencies. Something's got to give - and the electors of those squabbling Labour MPs might well ask just why they voted.

Reasons to be cheerful ====================- Glyphosate now safe in UK- Boats can go back to red diesel- No financial transaction tax in UK- We now manage our own fish stocks- Amazon, Apple and eBay now have to pay UK corporation tax- Traditional rag-and-stick sailors can go back to using Stockholm Tar on their rigging (without having to pretend it's for their horses' hooves)

17 comments:

The whole ethos of being an MP has changed during my lifetime from one of being a public servant. Going to parliament to represent and act upon the wishes of those that elected them. With the proviso than the interests of country trump that of anything else.

Now instead we have a political elite who look upon us mere proles with contempt. Yet they expect us to fund the lifestyle they have become accustomed too. Whilst turning a blind eye to them dipping into the national petty cash box as often as they can get away with it.

We have become the serfs of the local MP's manor.

However, the referendum has given them notice that the proles are revolting, in more senses than one and they don't like it up 'em! Hence at the moment all the scrambling to re-arrange the deckchairs in the first class trough of a punctured parliamentary Titanic.

I think when the piggies get around to oraganizing the coming snap general election, it is beholden to us that our next MPs go to parliament with the following tattoo'd on their foreheads - "... ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Yes, something has to give, and I am hoping that it will be the people who have hitherto been staunch Labour people, understanding that their vote will be better spent on voting for The United Kingdom Independence Party...

This is why they are overwhelmingly in thrall to supranational organisations... They were taught at school that the most important thing in the world is government, regulation, world peace and technocracy in general.

Whilst those of us, who just want to get on with our lives prefer to understand the importance of among other things... family/tribe, the markets, freedom, justice and novelty... Real politics.

I would say that the last thing we need now is the divisive Richard North and chums jackbooting their way around government quarters...

These folk are completely intolerant of anyone that does not hold the exact views of Richard bloody North, or his idiot boy 'Pete(y)'...

As someone who was going to be an original signatory of the Harrogate Agenda, I accept that it contains a degree of sense. It is just a shame it was written by someone that has absolutely no idea about the human race.

Saying that an MP has to represent the views of those who elected him or her does not reflect reality very well. An MPs duty is to give voice – as one of 650 voices – to concerns of the entire electorate, and it is an impossible job to represent any or all of the views of the electorate. A party candidate will have their own personal manifesto and the party manifesto, and these will sometimes align and sometimes conflict. What I think it is incumbent on a member of Parliament to do is to stay true to the position they announced when they were elected. Having said that, circumstances change during the currency of the parliament and MPs must be responsive to those changes rather than being totally dogmatic. Therefore, it would be valid for a Remainian to become a Brexiteer on hearing the result of the referendum, and I reluctantly have to accept that the conversion the other way might have been valid if the economy had in fact been completely ruined as a result of the referendum.I am a conservative, I am a Brexiteer, and I have not changed my views. But I am a realist and I think it is unlikely that over the next couple of years the status quo will change appreciably given that there is a majority in parliament on both sides of the house for remaining in the EU. The things that the original article says can happen could in fact happen. If we had a government with nuts then we could tell it like it is: we don't need a trade deal with Europe. If Europe puts tariffs in place we can put larger tariffs against them, but we probably don't need to because world trade has its own agreements. We could tell them that the common fisheries policy does not apply to British waters and sink foreign trawlers. We could hold up European lorries at airports until the contents petrified. We can hold up shipments of Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Skoda, Peugeot, and other motor cars so that they can't be sold here. We could turn away container ships. We could close parts of the channel to shipping going to Amsterdam. If we were bloody-minded enough we can cause more distress in Europe than they can cause to us.The question is, will we?

"The announcement will help reassure the investors needed to overhaul the UK's ageing energy system.

The energy industry will be relieved after cuts in renewables subsidies and the vote to leave the EU, which influences so much of the UK's energy.

Energy Secretary Amber Rudd said climate change remained one of the most serious long-term risks to the economy.

Speaking at a business and climate summit in London, Ms Rudd said: "Climate change has not been downgraded as a threat.

"We must not turn our back on Europe or the world. So while I think the UK's role in dealing with a warming planet may have been made harder by the decision last Thursday, our commitment to dealing with it has not gone away."

Business spokesmen at the conference echoed a call by the former Labour Climate Secretary Ed Miliband for the prime minister immediately to ratify the Paris climate accord in which nearly 180 countries agreed to cut carbon emissions."

FFS! what don't they understand about the financial catastrophe that is, the burden of the insane Climate Change Act 2008 and the related ecomadness, its energy policy of self imposed unilateral industrial suicide that, the green agenda causes to Britain? No longer are we part of the EU and its fucking lunatic carbon emissions limitations scheme, we need new fired COAL - for BASE LOAD and to bury Hinckley Point III and consequential allotment of giveaway £billions to the Chinese/frogs idiot project - and yesterday.

HS2 bin it it [No 1692/96/EC] - always was an EU vanity railway to speed it's diplomats and social engineers around Britain and the Brussels Empire, WE DO NOT FUCKING NEED THIS IDIOT PROJECT EITHER - £70 billion up the spout to cut railway times from London to Brum by 20 minutes? A railway with no stations and missing most of centres of major UK conurbations? Cripes on a bike - get building a new South WEST LINE, upgrade London SE, upgrade Sheffield/Manchester and build new stations in Leeds, Bradford, - airport et bloody cetera!

Next! With immediate effect; stop the taxpayer subsidy of electric cars, bin 'motability' - people carriers and cars for big Asian families - a new car every three years - how can you tell that the car industry was running the EU and think diesel emissions here - too.

All pro EU environmental inspired quangos - ended by last week.

Finally adding up the above and subtracting it from the expenditure of the Exchequer and giving it back through diminished taxes.......How much money could be saved and given back? Plus, a new energy policy with guaranteed plentiful supplies of cheap energy for industry and the consumer - Britain could boom, you know it could.

Personally I couldn't give a fuck what happens to the Labour Party. The damage they've inflicted on the English is incalculable. If you know a little political science - and that's definately me - you'll at least know that political ideology has two dimensions:

1. Goals: How society should be organized.

2. Methods: The most appropriate way to achieve this goal.

Labour started out as the 'workers' party' with the goal of getting rid of the class system. Its methods were many but all of them failed and in the end it was wealth creation which reduced inequality - and that got to work on the class sytem and that's why much of it is gone today. They lost the economic argument so they turned on their core supporters and started replacing them:

Labour's problem is far more serious than even you make out. It's elephant is that the Labour membership want one thing, whilst the (vastly greater numbers of) the electorate who traditionally *vote* Labour believe in something very different.

It will be interesting to see which side of that equation eventually decides it's had enough and leaves Labour.

As to North's assertion (see Drew's link) that the Leave campaign was poor -- I couldn't agree more. Both sides were bad: I haven't seen such dismal levels of debate anywhere, ever - not least because of the levels of heckling and interruption.

Of Anon and Nick Drew, I must further ask: who is being divisive? I suggest that we ALL bury the hatchet, consider the arguments, and thence pursue an informed and well planned path. In reply, you provide ad hominem attacks against North - addressing the man and not his painstaking work. Surely you understand that this is fallacious logic?

If you believe that you can re-grow the greatness of Britain on such a thorny basis of sand, rocks, and of appeals to emotion that put brawn before brain, you offer nothing different from the euSSR. Neither are you different if you will not value and employ high-quality brainwork, knowledge of practical application, and meticulous, persistent labour. If your approach disdains these qualities, you ditch an essential part of British tradition, and then: We are all doomed to a headlong flight South, I tell you!

After the uprising of the 17th of JuneThe Secretary of the Writers’ UnionHad leaflets distributed in the StalinalleeStating that the peopleHad forfeited the confidence of the governmentAnd could win it back onlyBy redoubled efforts. Would it not be easierIn that case for the governmentTo dissolve the peopleAnd elect another?The Solution, Bertolt Brecht